MovieChat Forums > On the Lot (2007) Discussion > No Second Season

No Second Season

posted 17 years ago by hjrogers94
18 replies | jump to latest

Although it shouldn't be a surprise that 1.5 rating show will not have a second season, an "On the Lot" moderator announced today that the forums will be closed in five days.

"On the Lot" joins "Situation: Comedy" and "Project Greenlight" as shows that overestimated the public's interest in people behind the camera.

The majority of people just want to be entertained. They don't care about the mechanisms involved to achieve that.

It's similar to buying fast food. You just want your food and you want it to taste reasonably good. You don't care about the fry cook and the drama he or she has with the cashier.

Anyone who has been to film school knows that watching your peers short films can be an awful experience. It's odd that someone thought that would make a good TV show.

http://community.thelot.com/boards/topic.aspx?topic_id=14316

"Now that On The Lot has come to an end, we regret to inform you that the forums will close at the end of August."

[–] thirdrow 17 years ago

I am personally very interested in behind-the-scenes filmmaking work. I would say that there is some type of market for this as many DVDs have director and cast commentaries and "making of" features these days.

However, this was not the emphasis of On the Lot. It was a very dry, arbitrary presentation of short films, with minimal coverage of the creative process involved. I think creativity is always exciting and enticing- I wish the show had captured that.

[–] RomaVictorrrr 17 years ago

Are people really interested in "behind the scenes" or do we just thirst for celebrities? Would we watch a DVD featurette about people we don't worship? Or listen to a commentary from someone who's not a Big Name? I think most people wouldn't. Sure, there's a few of us who wantt o hear how a director set up a scene, but most people would just like to see the Big Name actor standing around waiting to shoot his scene, because he's a Big Name and we love wacching him.

I'm fascinated with filmmaking and i was surprised at how quickly i lost interest in the show. I wonder if the majority of people are really curious about the creative process.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hjrogers94 17 years ago

"I wonder if the majority of people are really curious about the creative process."

Most people are NOT interested in "behind the scenes" of any creative process - UNLESS they want to learn how to create something similar themselves. People who post comments at an internet movie database that they think behind the scenes of movie-making is interesting are preaching to the choir.

Most people do NOT want to make movies. They really don't. A lot of people like to watch them, but most of those people could care less how they are made.

For example, a lot of people like to read books. Imagine the behind the scenes of a book. The author does research, makes notes, sketches out characters, outlines a story, etc. There's also the editor's involvement. Finally, the book is written, edited, printed, and shipped to stores.

There's a lot of interesting things happening there - for people who want to be authors, editors, and book printers. Not so much interest for anyone else.

"On the Lot" had a very limited audience - people who want to make films that haven't already been to film school that weren't friends of the contestants. Anyone who has been to film school knows that some of the worst experiences are suffering through friends' awful short films. Sure, you clap and support each other, but a lot of them sucked. A TV show featuring strangers' short films doesn't sound appealing to those who have already been through it.

People who want to go to film school or expect a TV show to substitute for it are not a large enough group of people to support a show like that.

A TV show contest featuring people who make short films isn't much more interesting than a TV show contest featuring people who write short stories - even if it has Stephen King's, John Grisham's, J.K. Rowling's, etc. name on it.

[–] GotaFeeling 16 years ago

"Are people really interested in "behind the scenes" or do we just thirst for celebrities? Would we watch a DVD featurette about people we don't worship? Or listen to a commentary from someone who's not a Big Name? I think most people wouldn't. Sure, there's a few of us who wantt o hear how a director set up a scene, but most people would just like to see the Big Name actor standing around waiting to shoot his scene, because he's a Big Name and we love wacching him."

Wow that was uncomfortable to read. So you would rather watch a celeb standing around than someone actually DOING something? No offense but you sound like the type to read those magazines that stalk celebs going shopping because it is so interesting to them...

To me celebrities usually became what they are because of making quality work and for me that is where it stays. I loved Pitt in Fight Club but the notion of watching him stand around is beyond ridiculous. I love Damon in The Bourne movies but that does not mean I have any interest in watching him go shopping or any other activity that I find mind numbingly boring. So speak for yourself, but not everyone is like you. Life is way too precious to waste it "worshipping" anyone.

No one is worth that anyway, no matter how talented. I would rather stare at a beautiful sunset than some flawed human standing around any day of the week.

[–] Hatton_Mann 17 years ago

The concept was flawed, not the subject. The producers cloned the show to American Idol, I have been watching the Next American Producer, and it is more of what I thought that this show should be.
I am VERY interested in the behind the scenes, so are plenty of people, just look at all the DVD extras.
It is a disappointment that with the two BIG names there was no original concept.
Porject Greenlight was another flawed show because of the choice of the director and Ben Affleck, who is a no-talent.

[–] MartyMartinOntheLot 17 years ago

The show was supposed to be 2/3 Apprentice-like behind-the-scenes and 1/3 American Idol for the results shows. I don't know if you remember, but in the beginning weeks, they cut out Mondays, which meant they cut out behind-the-scenes. As contestants we all wanted the same thing you guys did, but obviously we had no control over that.

Marty Martin
Director/Producer/Editor
www.imagenfilms.com
www.marty-martin.com

[–] kickinback73 17 years ago

I think in today's programming they don't give some shows a fair shot. You have an extremely limited amount of time to be as successful as the execs expect and if you falter, you either get cut right away or the plans change. I think it might have been more successful if they gave it more of a chance in trying it out for two nights a week instead of one night. Maybe make one episode just a half hour or something. They don't show much confidence in alot of shows beyond they're initial airing. And sometimes I think that gives a bad impression on potential viewers.

[–] TheAblazinDevilHead 17 years ago

"I am VERY interested in the behind the scenes, so are plenty of people, just look at all the DVD extras."

I enjoy that stuff too, but unfortunately, there's a time and place for it and it's not on network TV apparently. We're outnumbered by the people who just want to be entertained by the final product. And "On the Lot" fumbled it and cut short its core film nerd audience for a possible bigger one which were friends and family of the contestants. Which just so happened to be NOT big enough either.

_

"It's dead, baby. Gimme a sec." - Frank Ackerman

[–] Anyanka1 16 years ago

I think they should have kept this show. Maybe it would make people realize that directors and screenwriters are the actual ones doing all the work! (Though, yes, actors work hard, too). But the screenwriters and directors are forgotten about when they are the brilliant minds behind it! I mean, do you ever watch a movie, think it's excellent, and then ask yourself, "Who's the screenwriter, they're great!" Nope.

Me: Brenda just got arrested! Suzette: Brenda?? Our neighbor?! Me: No, Brenda Walsh!

[–] deannajones 16 years ago

I'm really dissapointed that there's no second season:( This was actually one of the better reallity shows.

Dang! I always end up sitting next to a weirdo.

[–] kenny32151 17 years ago

"It's similar to buying fast food. You just want your food and you want it to taste reasonably good. You don't care about the fry cook and the drama he or she has with the cashier."

Actually if you found the right place and a good cook and a good cashier this would probably make a good show. The way people are these days.

[–] backktothefuture 16 years ago

I really liked this show, as an aspiring director it was very very interesting to see the process and watch the films they made.

[–] hypnoto 16 years ago

Same here, I did enjoy the show and I would love a DVD version of it so I can catch the episodes I missed (I live in Canada and so I can't watch it online if its available anywhere) I too am an aspiring filmmaker and am really interested in the whole process from writing to casting to filming to post-prod etc.

[–] bigbobhenderson 16 years ago

It was a failed attempt at an interesting concept but like a previous poster said, people just want to be entertained. The Average Joe Plumber doesn't care how a cinematographer lit and filmed a scene just as much as I don't care how he fixed my toilet.

[–] JPFolkspro 16 years ago

The real problem with the show is that the "judges" were unbearable to watch, made ridiculous and pointless comments and basically made the experience of watching the show miserable.

People LOVE to see how stuff is made. Watch the shows on Bravo to see how a well done behind the scenes show should be done. Top Chef is fantastic.. and I don't cook (nor do I care to) anything that needs to be prepared more than heated up in a microwave. Same with Project runway or America's next top model. Again, no interest in being involved in this things, but the shows themselves are interesting as a glimpse into a world most will never see and never aspire to be part of. The interest level in behind the scenes movie making is far greater. But the shows so far in that realm have been the worst examples of the format to date. Rather than be educational and really highlight the difference between someone with talent and someone without it, they built up bogus Soap Opera elements (Project Greenlight) and focused on a bunch of clueless hacks as judges (like On The Lot). If they took what they did right from both, they'd be a lot closer to a show folks would enjoy. DVD extras are extremely popular. Someone will eventually figure out that you CAN do a quality show about nearly ANY topic and make it very interesting. They've got on about Lumberjacks and Sea Fisherman and Truck Drivers and found excitement in all those things. Like there's not creative excitement in movie making?

I always find it humorous when people suggest they "know" what everyone else really wants.. and then suggests that it's crap like Celebrity stalking. It's like people in political discussions that suggest that voters (other than themselves of course) are too stupid to make the right choice for themselves. It smacks of elitism... ironically by dumbing down and placing celebs in promo spots, On The Lot shot for the lowest denominator and failed miserably. Someone will figure it out and do it right. It will likely not be on a mainstream network.. but rather a more niche one that can play it smart and not insult their audiences intelligence.

Brian

[–] coastin_on_a_dream 16 years ago

it's not the fact that people aren't interested in how movies are mad. they ARE interested. but this show was very poorly executed. it was just all around bad and not entertaining. everything about it was cringe-worthy to bland. from the contestants they selected (horrible bunch they chose), to the crappy movies they made, to the host, to the judges, to the format...everything about it was bad.

[–] tdl797 16 years ago

I enjoyed this show, but I thought one flaw was that good movies take time for the most part. Yes, Godard shot on the fly with little to no script, but everyone's not Godard. And at that, he didn't do it every week. Only one week to make something quality and then having to repeat that week after week I'm sure was not easy in the least bit.

I'm interested in filmmaking but I'm not sure I could come up with subjects every week and keep them interesting. I wonder how someone like Kubrick would have done with this - or any modern director really?

This probably would have been a smash in the short days with Chaplin/Keaton, etc.

Then you also have to think - does a good short director make a good full length director?